4 ms·

This is why I live in a society that enforces contracts through a court system. In a functioning society you can’t sell someone a year worth of prepaid car was

This is why I live in a society that enforces contracts through a court system. In a functioning society you can’t sell someone a year worth of prepaid car washes and then decide they need to start paying you again 3 months into your contract. Will be interesting to see if this touches the courts and, if so, how it plays out.

ryandrake 4y ago
Contracts are only as good as the wealth, power, and ability you have to fight in court and ensure they get enforced. Which is why they 1. usually have lopsided boilerplate terms that protect only the powerful party, 2. are usually largely written by the wealthy, powerful corporation, and 3. usually only enforced against the relatively powerless consumer. In the ideal fantasy world, contracts are supposed to be "meeting of the minds" between parties of equal power and benefitting parties equally. But when I think of "contract" today, I immediately think "weapon used by a company to beat up a consumer".
- Macha 4y ago
  Depending on how many domains he's registered and how much the value of that service for the remaining years is, this may be eligible for small claims.
- falcolas 4y ago
  Seeing how Nintendo and the courts screwed around with the stick drift class action lawsuit (the parents can’t be in the class since their kids use it, yet the parents were the ones bound by the forced arbitration), and how clickwrap EULAs have become largely accepted as fully binding in courts… 100% this
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > when I think of "contract" today, I immediately think "weapon used by a company to beat up a consumer" This view is unsupported by the facts in all competent jurisdictions. It’s a convenient one, however, for certain people to spread.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    One of the first things you learn about in contract law after the elements of contract formation is the idea of unconscionability, but it's often construed by courts in such narrow terms that consumers who are pressured or tricked into handing over their money have little recourse. https://californialawreview.org/print/unconscionability-as-a-sword-the-case-for-an-affirmative-cause-of-action/ https://californialawreview.org/print/unconscionability-as-a...
    - mindslight 4y ago
      "We can change these terms at any time, and your agreement is indicated by your continuing to exist. Also if we violate these terms you can't actually take us to court but we'll pay our buddy Arby to decide if you have a valid point" From a non-professional prospective, one of the problems with unconscionability is that even terms that are blatantly opposite to prevailing law are highly misleading. This further disenfranchises individuals from the legal system, obscuring our rights even further. I'd personally like to see blatant examples of such start getting policed as something akin to giving improper legal advice.
      - mananaysiempre 4y ago
        Not a lawyer, but Gandi is based in France, and I don’t think they recognize mandatory arbitration (or choice of law) clauses in consumer contracts there.
        mindslight 4y ago
        Yeah, I was making a general point. I used to use Gandi some time ago. I forget why I drifted away from them. I think I only had one domain there, which I then let lapse rather than renewing. Given what I remember of their rep I'm surprised about this news, but I guess that's the constant churn of "creative" destruction. Enjoy the reasonable vendors you've figured out this year, because next year your own reliance will be an asset to be sold and arbitraged away.
- garbagecoder 4y ago
  In California at least, a small claim is pretty efficient as long as the claim is more than the modest filing fee. They can't hire an outside lawyer to handle it, either. If they have an inside one they can use that, but anyway. I've had great success this way against United Airlines, Toyota, and other bigs.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    The sweet spot for companies is the low tens of thousands. At that level, you're disqualified from small claims and it's not really worth an actual lawsuit. It's a very narrow band, though.
  - indymike 4y ago
    Here in Indiana, in many jurisdictions companies have to hire outside counsel to go to small claims. This means that it can be quite expensive to litigate for businesses against legitimate small claims.
    - garbagecoder 4y ago
      Here in California we have several levels. There are different classes of small claims, there are limited civil claims and then unlimited civil for over $25,000 though some counties have special programs for unlimited claims under $50,000. If you stay in small claims, usually you get an in-house paralegal that just wants it to go away. Over $50,000 you get outside counsel that wants to bill the file.
j45 4y ago
OP: Have you enforced a contract through a court system? Would love to hear more about that.

ryandrake 4y ago

Contracts are only as good as the wealth, power, and ability you have to fight in court and ensure they get enforced. Which is why they 1. usually have lopsided boilerplate terms that protect only the powerful party, 2. are usually largely written by the wealthy, powerful corporation, and 3. usually only enforced against the relatively powerless consumer. In the ideal fantasy world, contracts are supposed to be "meeting of the minds" between parties of equal power and benefitting parties equally. But when I think of "contract" today, I immediately think "weapon used by a company to beat up a consumer".

Macha 4y ago
Depending on how many domains he's registered and how much the value of that service for the remaining years is, this may be eligible for small claims.
falcolas 4y ago
Seeing how Nintendo and the courts screwed around with the stick drift class action lawsuit (the parents can’t be in the class since their kids use it, yet the parents were the ones bound by the forced arbitration), and how clickwrap EULAs have become largely accepted as fully binding in courts… 100% this
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> when I think of "contract" today, I immediately think "weapon used by a company to beat up a consumer" This view is unsupported by the facts in all competent jurisdictions. It’s a convenient one, however, for certain people to spread.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  One of the first things you learn about in contract law after the elements of contract formation is the idea of unconscionability, but it's often construed by courts in such narrow terms that consumers who are pressured or tricked into handing over their money have little recourse. https://californialawreview.org/print/unconscionability-as-a-sword-the-case-for-an-affirmative-cause-of-action/ https://californialawreview.org/print/unconscionability-as-a...
  - mindslight 4y ago
    "We can change these terms at any time, and your agreement is indicated by your continuing to exist. Also if we violate these terms you can't actually take us to court but we'll pay our buddy Arby to decide if you have a valid point" From a non-professional prospective, one of the problems with unconscionability is that even terms that are blatantly opposite to prevailing law are highly misleading. This further disenfranchises individuals from the legal system, obscuring our rights even further. I'd personally like to see blatant examples of such start getting policed as something akin to giving improper legal advice.
    - mananaysiempre 4y ago
      Not a lawyer, but Gandi is based in France, and I don’t think they recognize mandatory arbitration (or choice of law) clauses in consumer contracts there.
      - mindslight 4y ago
        Yeah, I was making a general point. I used to use Gandi some time ago. I forget why I drifted away from them. I think I only had one domain there, which I then let lapse rather than renewing. Given what I remember of their rep I'm surprised about this news, but I guess that's the constant churn of "creative" destruction. Enjoy the reasonable vendors you've figured out this year, because next year your own reliance will be an asset to be sold and arbitraged away.
garbagecoder 4y ago
In California at least, a small claim is pretty efficient as long as the claim is more than the modest filing fee. They can't hire an outside lawyer to handle it, either. If they have an inside one they can use that, but anyway. I've had great success this way against United Airlines, Toyota, and other bigs.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  The sweet spot for companies is the low tens of thousands. At that level, you're disqualified from small claims and it's not really worth an actual lawsuit. It's a very narrow band, though.
- indymike 4y ago
  Here in Indiana, in many jurisdictions companies have to hire outside counsel to go to small claims. This means that it can be quite expensive to litigate for businesses against legitimate small claims.
  - garbagecoder 4y ago
    Here in California we have several levels. There are different classes of small claims, there are limited civil claims and then unlimited civil for over $25,000 though some counties have special programs for unlimited claims under $50,000. If you stay in small claims, usually you get an in-house paralegal that just wants it to go away. Over $50,000 you get outside counsel that wants to bill the file.

j45 4y ago

OP: Have you enforced a contract through a court system? Would love to hear more about that.